Let’s collect ideas for improving the review function (aka demo board).
The following is a tentative way to organize discussion but please also feel free to suggest a better way (or a word, etc).
- A “new 'a’ctivity”—example:
## A1. One-spot question
- F “new 'f’eature”—something that enables new activity
A1. One-spot question
- How to attack that group from here?
- That area looks kinda open. How to invade/reduce?
Multiple opinions/variations by different authors?
A2. Incremental-interactive review
- Brief intuitive comments, possibly with suggestion of a few alternative moves, a weakness or a counter move
- The reviewee can ask for elaboration, possibly later after some learning and when ready, possibly to a different (more knowledgeable) reviewer
What’s especially difficult for a learner may be to know when a mistake started. For some, being given some points to focus attention may be enough to prompt per to try differently in next game. The attempt may not be optimal but it’s hopefully in the right direction and person may learn from the result.
Different but related:
A3. Collaborative review
I presume it’s very difficult to allow it in parallel (thread) so one person at a time. I think a user shouldn’t be able to delete someone else’s branch but other actions seem fine (?). Maybe not by default (on/off).
(The original post includes screenshot.)
A4. Re-review by a stronger player
Review of review.
Review my review?
F1. Distinguish authors
F1a. Concentric rings
Possibly only show the last 2 authors to limit size.
F1b. Profile icon
F2. Subscribe to a review to get notified
F3. Hide (on/off) some branches or make them fainter
Some details may be helpful for the reviewer perself or the re-reviewer to check intuition. However, they can also be overwhelming or too advanced for the reviewee.
F4. Identify branches
(When I highlighted, it didn’t suggest “Quote” (too old?), so I had to copy-paste—each annotation category is linked in the original post.)